Topic: Expensive bats that never (Read 13565 times)

Chad · « **Reply #30 on:** March 05, 2019, 12:38:30 AM »

I have many bats that cost more than �300, some even �400 - which haven't touched a ball except for tapping up. Some Halestorms, SG and SS Players edition bats, L&W Signature and Reserves. Recently acquired some Kippax Sancta Grails. Have some H4L Custom Grade bats. Aus GN bats. A Phantom Players PS7 Pro grade and 2 Dark Editions.

This is a < �200 TK made Phantom which is in the Dark Edition shape with a slightly shorter blade and longer handle. I have fallen in love with it and will probably be my match bat. I got this like 2 or 3 years ago, prepared it and didn't use it. I only used in the last match of the season, when my arms tired after using a Warner Kaboom for 15 overs. Felt right from the first ball faced. It's meant to be G2 performance, but 7 pretty clean and straight grains, so could pass as G1. Goes to show that more money doesn't mean a bat that suits you better!

AJ2014 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 05, 2019, 08:24:12 AM »

Knowing that you've got big amount of bats, how do you know feel about the ones that you've touched yet but paid a lot of money for them? Do they not feel good any more in your hands or you've changed batting style? I'm sure they're truly high quality bats, this one looks grade 1 as well 🙂

LBWCandidate · « **Reply #32 on:** March 05, 2019, 08:14:28 PM »

I bought a Laver Wood Signature which felt good and looked amazing but could not get going with no bow profile. Could hit too many shots in the air and I only play T20 now.
Maybe it was mental. Finally sold it on eBay.

Six Sixes Cricket · « **Reply #33 on:** March 07, 2019, 01:13:52 PM »

Quote from: AJ2014 on March 07, 2019, 12:15:25 PM

It's difficult to hit 6s with a bat with no bow, at least that's what they say

🙈

jonny77 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 07, 2019, 01:22:27 PM »

Quote from: AJ2014 on March 07, 2019, 12:15:25 PM

It's difficult to hit 6s with a bat with no bow, at least that's what they say

Whoever says that is having you on or had been given very wrong information!

edge · « **Reply #35 on:** March 07, 2019, 01:59:55 PM »

Quote from: AJ2014 on March 07, 2019, 01:54:29 PM

IJC, Paul says that a bow helps hitting in the air, easier to clear the rope

Without wanting to be too harsh, IJC Paul is (not unusually) talking rubbish.

JB · « **Reply #36 on:** March 07, 2019, 02:18:29 PM »

I had a lovely Affinity Polaris, the rebound was fantastic but it had no bow. I really struggled because of it. The bat was superb I just couldn't get over how straight it was and ended up moving it on

AJ2014 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 07, 2019, 02:24:18 PM »

And he says bow helps work bat's pickup, find no reason not to agree with him
That happened to me with one of the older models gm, even though that was high quality bat but couldn't get over no bow
Guess majority of batsmen are using bowed bats, some less some more

LBWCandidate · « **Reply #38 on:** March 07, 2019, 02:56:19 PM »

Quote from: AJ2014 on March 07, 2019, 12:15:25 PM

It's difficult to hit 6s with a bat with no bow, at least that's what they say

I think it was the batsman rather than the bow.

KW9221 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 07, 2019, 03:00:59 PM »

Quote from: LBWCandidate on March 07, 2019, 02:56:19 PM

I think it was the batsman rather than the bow.

I agree! It�s all psychological. Bow/ no bow doesn�t bother me as much. I have tried 10 different brands in last 2 years and they were all fine.

jonny77 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 07, 2019, 04:23:15 PM »

Coming back to the game after years out i find a lot of it difficult to agree with tbh, think most of it is psychological. Just never bothered anyone a few years ago.

The 'counterbalance' handle, the 'can't get on with the shorter blade/longer handle set up' etc. But the 'bow helps to clear the infield' is just ridiculous. Even the 'low middle for front foot play' is a bit daft tbf imo.

stevat · « **Reply #41 on:** March 07, 2019, 04:38:07 PM »

Quote from: jonny77 on March 07, 2019, 04:23:15 PM

Coming back to the game after years out i find a lot of it difficult to agree with tbh, think most of it is psychological. Just never bothered anyone a few years ago.

The 'counterbalance' handle, the 'can't get on with the shorter blade/longer handle set up' etc. But the 'bow helps to clear the infield' is just ridiculous. Even the 'low middle for front foot play' is a bit daft tbf imo.

I remember a while back I had a team mate who had a white sheet affixed to the front of a net bat so he could determine where on the blade he was striking the ball. He thought that you manoeuvre the bat with your hands in such a way that you regularly hit the ball with the same part of the bat (or hope to as ideal given your hand-eye coordination) - and thus thought that low middle bats were useless to him as he hit the ball higher up the blade. Wouldn't matter if the pitch was low, as he would adjust automatically without thinking about it. Guess what I'm saying is that there's always been fads, as you get older you get used to a particular shape and pick up - so long as it goes okay you're fine. I wonder though how many people on here may have gone through a rough patch now and then and thought about switching to something different, i.e. blaming the tools rather than the workman???

ppccopener · « **Reply #42 on:** March 07, 2019, 04:50:55 PM »

Yes totally right, I can see how a bow might aid pick up but not to clear the infield, that�s just an odd thing to say. It�s come full circle on bat faces that�s all, back in the 80�s they were flat, then a period of big bows, now a lot of manufacturers sell flat blades and a lot of the pros use them-GM for example are most if not all flat.

As for low or high middles rather than the wickets we play on maybe your stance and if you have low or high hands would be just as important.

JB · « **Reply #43 on:** March 07, 2019, 05:02:00 PM »

Quote from: jonny77 on March 07, 2019, 04:23:15 PM

Coming back to the game after years out i find a lot of it difficult to agree with tbh, think most of it is psychological. Just never bothered anyone a few years ago.

The 'counterbalance' handle, the 'can't get on with the shorter blade/longer handle set up' etc. But the 'bow helps to clear the infield' is just ridiculous. Even the 'low middle for front foot play' is a bit daft tbf imo.

I used a Warbird Pro I've got in the nets on sunday gone, found myself going hard at everything. Changed it after 20 balls for a standard SH

InternalTraining · « **Reply #44 on:** March 07, 2019, 05:03:54 PM »

Flat, no bow, bats are garbage. There, I said it.

Today's biggest hitters use bowed bats. I own a bat that was made for Chris Lynn and not only does it have a huge bow but also has the most aggressively forward set handle I had ever seen!

I tried using flat bats but don't get the elevation for clearing the rope. If you only on a fast outfield and like hitting the ball on ground, sure, use a flat bed. They are great for boring style of cricket which is already going out of style.

Author Topic: Expensive bats that never (Read 13565 times)

Chad

Re: Expensive bats that never

AJ2014

Re: Expensive bats that never

LBWCandidate

Re: Expensive bats that never

Six Sixes Cricket

Re: Expensive bats that never

jonny77

Re: Expensive bats that never

edge

Re: Expensive bats that never

JB

Re: Expensive bats that never

AJ2014

Re: Expensive bats that never

LBWCandidate

Re: Expensive bats that never

KW9221

Re: Expensive bats that never

jonny77

Re: Expensive bats that never

stevat

Re: Expensive bats that never

ppccopener

Re: Expensive bats that never

JB

Re: Expensive bats that never

InternalTraining

Re: Expensive bats that never